GOPAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A.B.L. Gaur and Sri Arvind Agarwal, learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Pathak Advocate for the first informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 22.2.2006 at 10.30 P.M. One person has died in the incident. The father of the deceased received injuries as well as three passersby on the road have also received pellet injuries. The injury reports are on record.

(3.) The submission on behalf of the applicant is that it is night occurrence. There was no electricity supply and it was complete dark. In support of this contention, a certificate from the Electricity Department of the relevant date and time has been placed before me to show that there was no electricity supply of 33 KV. from 9.00 P.M. up till 10.40 P.M. The electricity supply was resumed only at 22.40 hours. The next argument is that three passersby who have received pellet injuries, have filed their affidavits stating that they had not seen the accused participating in the crime. It is argued next that the co-accused Pawan has been granted bail by this Court and also Hari Om was allowed bail by the learned Sessions Judge and, therefore, the applicants are entitled for bail.